Re: [emergency] Successful Emergency Management IPR Transition Ballot

[creed@opengeospatial.org]

I also participated in the conference calls in which the IPR transition
policy was discussed and approved.

If anyone is interested, there is a great editorial on standards, IPR, and
IPR policies http://consortiuminfo.org/ipr/ . This editorial was written
by Andy Updegrove, an internationally recognized guru on IPR policies for
use by standards bodies/consortia. He is also OGC's legal counsel :-)

Anyway, all the work of the OGC to date has been RAND-RF. The OGC IPR
policy does not even recognize the the use of RF-Limited for the reasons
that Rex has pointed out.

Cheers

Carl



> I may be wrong, but as I recall from an earlier briefing, "Limited
> Terms" allows the party with IPR encumbrance for their donations to
> "set" their terms, which means it opens the door to "lawyering" which
> is one of those proverbial "slippery slopes," while RAND has more
> specifically spelled out terms. However, had I had more time to
> attend the meeting when this was decided, I would have asked Jamie if
> the TC had the leeway to suggest (and set policy to enforce) the
> exact language of what "Limited Terms" could mean in relation to our
> TC, which might have given us the option of "closing" that
> "lawyering" door.
>
> Cheers,
> Rex
>
> At 2:59 PM +1000 10/4/06, Renato Iannella wrote:
>>On 4 Oct 2006, at 11:43, Elysa Jones wrote:
>>
>>>We covered it again today just be sure everyone understood and it
>>>will be documented in the minutes of todays meeting.  During our
>>>discussions over the months, all TC members expressed an interest
>>>in keeping the work of the TC as open and free as possible.  The
>>>choice the TC agreed to is RF on RAND as described on the OASIS
>>>site at http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php.
>>>This mode requires anyone submitting information to the TC that may
>>>have IP claims to be fully disclosed as such to the group.  The
>>>group can then chose to include it or not.  The consensus of the TC
>>>membership now is that we would not accept any IP to be included in
>>>our work products.
>>>
>>
>>I just really want to know why "RF and RAND" was chosen over "RF on
>>Limited Terms"?
>>
>>It seems to me that the latter is (slightly) "open and freer" than
>>the former??
>>
>>Cheers...  Renato Iannella
>>National ICT Australia (NICTA)
>>
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>This email and any attachments may be confidential. They may contain
>> legally
>>privileged information or copyright material. You should not read, copy,
>>use or disclose them without authorisation. If you are not an intended
>>recipient, please contact us at once by return email and then delete both
>>messages. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus,
>>data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised
>>amendment. This notice should not be removed.
>
>
> --
> Rex Brooks
> President, CEO
> Starbourne Communications Design
> GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
> Berkeley, CA 94702
> Tel: 510-849-2309
>